Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Shuttle-Centaur

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Shuttle-Centaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I came across this in my reading and decided to create a new article about it. Rather than use an expendable rocket with a Centaur upper stage, NASA decided to put the Centaur in a Space Shuttle. What could possibly go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text review support (16-02-2021) by Neopeius

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
  • "The probes were ultimately launched" Add "slated for use with the Centaur" after "The probes."
Background
[edit]
  • "Centaur ultimately outlived its competitors, and most of its critics too." This is an odd line since we never learn of its critics in this brief background.
{{yo:Hawkeye7}} I forgot about this one. Can you delete "and most of its critics too"? Either that or make a note somewhere preceding that the Centaur had critics and why? --Neopeius (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Space Shuttle upper stages
[edit]
Deep space probes
[edit]
  • "The JPL" delete "The"
  • "It would be the fifth spacecraft to visit Jupiter, and the first to orbit it, while the probe would be the first to enter its atmosphere." As of this paragraph, there is no separate probe. In the original concept, was the whole thing going to plunge into Jupiter, or was it a bus and probe combo? As it stands, "the probe" seems to refer to the whole spacecraft, making "while the probe" superfluous.
    checkY Re-worded. Changed to "the probe it carried". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward" A less judgmental word or set of words would be preferable (less costly, less time consuming, etc.)
    The source says it was a mistake not to have gone with Titan IIIE, failing which it was a mistake not to have gone with Shuttle-Centaur. The driver of the whole thing was the decision that all future space launches would use the Space Shuttle. That necessitated everything that followed. There were a lot of undesirable consequences, some of which are detailed in the final section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "In retrospect, doing so would have proven cheaper, faster, and safer than the option ultimately chosen, but..." Also, I suggest swapping the two paragraphs (lead with the shuttle-centaur -- then when you get to this line, you're discussing something already known to the reader rather than leaving it hanging for the reader to find out.) @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've swapped them round, but now the text talks about IUS, then Shuttle-Centaur, then Titan IIIE, before looping back to Shuttle-Centaur again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was a disdain for expendable launch vehicles" by whom?
    checkY Added "at NASA".
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur
[edit]
Congressional approval
[edit]
Management
[edit]
  • "A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced, with 28 months on it from January 1984 to April 1986." Suggest "A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced with 28 months on it, from January 1984 to April 1986."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two missions were scheduled:" "Two Shuttle-Centaur missions were scheduled:" Also, this is an abrupt way to start a section (mobile readers may not read the preceding) so perhaps add a date or additional context.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome
[edit]


@Hawkeye7: Excellent work. Please ping me when you've reviewed and acted. --Neopeius (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Just the one remaining issue. Then you've got my support for A and FA. --Neopeius (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: What is the remaining issue? I have lost track. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: You're good now. Support! --Neopeius (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]
Background
[edit]
  • Style choice, by I would use {{Main}} to link to the Centaur page at the top of the section.
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly attractive prospect" Remove "particularly," as the point already gets across by saying it's an attractive propsect; it comes across as WP:EMPHATIC
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The development of Centaur was dogged by technical difficulties..." Are these the same issues as discussed earlier about cryogenic fuels and hydrogen leaking? It should be explained what the difficulties are. Also, I would replaced "dogged," as that strikes me as a figure of speech.
    "Dogged" is not a figure of speech. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "radical weight-saving features" I would argue the features are no longer radical if they have a successful track record. I would remove "radical."
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The technical problems were overcome," Which technical issues are being referred to here? It's not clear.
    checkY Added more detail about them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Centaur ultimately outlived its competitors, and most of its critics too." What competitors are being referred to here? The Titan rockets? Also, I would remove "most of its critics too," as that's comparing human lives to a hardware program, and it's not like the Centaur has remained unchanged since the initial development.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "handling liquid hydrogen proved crucial to winning the Space Race" I would remove this and just state it was used in the Saturn V and Space Shuttle. I understand that it's important for the Saturn V, but there are so many other developments that enabled Apollo 11 to land on the moon that I think it's a stretch to call any one of them a "crucial," since they were all important in some way or another.
    checkY Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(albeit with the internal bracing that Wernher von Braun preferred)" This isn't necessary when discussing the Saturn V upper stages; it's clear that they are different rockets, and it's not implied that it uses no internal bracing by saying that it used liquid hydrogen as fuel.
    checkY Deleted. So long as the reder is in no doubt that the Centaur design remained controversial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Centaur was placed atop the United States Air Force (USAF) Titan IIIE" This makes it sound like the Titan IIIE was already a launch vehicle that had a Centaur added on top of it, but as far I can tell, the Titan IIIE was the Titan III booster with a Centaur upper stage. I would say that it was used for the Titan IIIE.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "create an even more powerful launch vehicle system" This comes across as WP:PUFFERY; upper stages are exclusively used to make the launch vehicle system more powerful. As far as I can tell, this isn't different than a Centaur being added to an Atlas rocket.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "impressive record of 53 successful missions against two failures." This comes across as WP:PUFFERY; remove "impressive record."
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Titan IIIE-Centaur was only used seven times" as the launch record is already stated above, and while seven launches isn't the most of any launch vehicle, I think stating it was "only seven launches" makes it sound like the program was unsuccessful, when it was just replaced.
    checkY It wasn't replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal opinion here, but I think it can be argued that that Titan IV eventually replaced the Titan III, even though it didn't also have the Centaur upper stage like the Titan III-E. Regardless of the debate on the significance of its seven flights, it's stated twice in this section. My take is to remove the second mention. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Titan IV did use the Centaur upper stage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a stretch to say that the Titan IIIE was viewed as the last expendable launch vehicle. While Mr. Wilford and Mr. Beggs believed in the future of the Space Shuttle, the development of the Titan IV indicates there were still efforts being made towards expendable vehicles.
    Continue reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either remove "Nonetheless, a cautious USAF ordered ten Titan IV rockets in 1984" or just say that they ordered ten Titan IV rockets. Adding "Nonetheless" comes across as WP:EDITORIAL, and using "cautious" has a bit of a negative connotation that the Air Force wasn't embracing the new technology.
    The USAF was keeping Titan alive in case the Space Shuttle proved a failure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The USAF was approached for assistance, and an agreement was reached on 11 July 1974..." Saying the Air Force was approached personifies the Air Force and makes it sound more casual than such an agreement would be. I would say something like "A joint NASA-USAF agreement released on 11 July 1974 commissioned the development of an IUS"
    checkY Agreement was reached at the Pentagon on 11 July. Four days later, Schlesinger and Fletcher shook on it. Elaborated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of study contracts were let, resulting..." Is there more info on these study contracts (who conducted them, what the results were, etc.) to explain? If not, I would just add on to the previous sentence that the ultimate result was an expendable solid-fuel upper stage.
    checkY Plenty of info on the study contracts, but the point is that an expendable solid-fuel upper stage was chosen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would shorten the national defense explanation about Galileo. While interesting, it has little to do with Shuttle-Centaur, other than the Galileo mission being a motivating factor for the program. Maybe just state that USAF scientists wanted to improve autonomous and radiation-hardened spacecraft with an interest in applying it to their own satellites.
    checkYTrimmed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Galileo national defense paragraph personifies the USAF by saying it was interested in Galileo's autonomy and radiation hardening. If those phrases are left in the section, I would say something about it being USAF satellite engineers (or the like), not the organization as a whole.
    checkY The organsation as a whole, not satellite engineers (who were not part of the USAF). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But the three-stage IUS was itself overweight..." To what is this compared? This makes it seem like the IUS was accidentally overweight and needed to be slimmed down, instead of what I assume means it had to carry more propellant for the heavier probe. I would just state that the three-stage IUS and probe were 3,200 kilograms above the Shuttle's current capacity.
    checkYAgainst its design specifications. Added this. The Shuttle's capacity depended on several factors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "special lightweight version of the Space Shuttle external tank" Is this just referring to the LWT? I would link to it specifically.
    checkY Yes, but it doesn't have its own article, and the one on the external tank is already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle orbiter stripped of all non-essential equipment" It's not really clear what non-essential equipment is here. Does that mean no other payloads would be carried, or does this mean significant changes have to happen to the orbiter (removal of internal storage compartments, reducing seats on board, planning for a short-duration mission that only focuses on the probe deployment)?
    checkY All of the above. The downstairs sets would have been removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While a Mars slingshot was still possible in 1984, it would no longer be sufficient to reach Jupiter." The order of this makes it a little confusing. If a Mars slingshot would be possible in that the probe could reach Mars but can't make it to Jupiter, it wouldn't be helpful for the Galileo mission; I would state that delays until 1984 meant that the probe couldn't reach Jupiter, even with a Mars slingshot.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1979, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Transportation Systems, John Yardley, directed the Lewis Research Center to determine the feasibility of integrating Centaur with the Space Shuttle. The engineers at Lewis concluded that it was both feasible and safe." This is pretty wordy, and personifies the Lewis Research Center. I would combine these sentences. Yardley launched the study and directed the Lewis engineers to conduct it, who determined it was feasible/safe.
    He ordered the center to study it. I can't save any words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrase the quote given to Thomas O'Toole; it's not a quote from someone of particular notability, and doesn't say anything that profound beyond that the Centaur is a powerful upper stage.
    checkY paraphrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward, but this was not apparent in 1979" It sounds like the page is providing commentary, even though it is a sourced opinion. NASA decision makers did not know about the Challenger disaster and were hopeful about the future of the Shuttle, so this commentary makes it sound like willful ignorance instead of making the best decision with the info they had.
    checkY Willful ignorance would be closer to the truth, but rephrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disdain for expendable launch vehicles at NASA" This is pretty strong; "disdain" makes it sound like there was hatred towards expendable launch vehicles, rather than a belief that the crewed Shuttle would be the better option. I would remove it and state that national policy was that all launches should used the Space Shuttle.
    checkY Rephrased. Of course, the national policy was only in place because NASA administrators pushed for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really clear what the USAF-NASA issues were (the way its written personifies both organizations). I would rephrase it to say that NASA management did not want to use a USAF-controlled launch vehicle, because of difficulties during previous joint missions (and state what the issues were).
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just state the Ulysses renaming without going into the backstory.
    checkY Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ESA would therefore supply the sole spacecraft" Remove "therefore"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was never intended to make a close approach to the Sun; engineers joked that it would never be closer to the Sun than when it was sitting on the launch pad in Florida." Since it's not stated that the spacecraft would make a close approach, I think this can be left out. Regarding the joke about being close to the sun, while it's funny (and correct), I don't think it belongs in this description either.
    The point is that it was going via Jupiter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not take out the joke and then combine the last three sentences; something like "It wouldn't make a close approach to the sun but would instead travel out to Jupiter to use a slingshot maneuver to leave the ecliptic plane."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two Ulysses sentences are wordy. Combine the last two sentences of the Ulysses description; something like: "Like Galileo, the Ulysses probe would travel out to Jupiter, where it would use a slingshot maneuver to leave the ecliptic plane."
    That would not be correct though; Galileo was not leaving the ecliptic plane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposed description may have been off, but as it stands in a wordy way of describing the Ulysses mission. I would combine the sentences.
    checkY Reworded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The final sentence made for an abrupt end to the paragraph; I combined it with the previous sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur
[edit]
  • "not in favor of using Centaur" This article has the word "utilising", but has American English here. To satisfy MOS:ARTCON, one national variety should be used. As this is an American program, my viewpoint is that it should be MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, but I definitely have my bias towards the American spelling variety.
    checkY The article is in AmEng, but my spellchecker is not. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way to tie in the Senate support for Shuttle-Centaur? While it's a part of the story, it seems out of place that the Senate makes a decision and the paragraph ends making it seem like NASA could and would disregard any Congressional order.
    Yes, that's correct. Under the American system of government the executive is not answerable to the legislature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "price tag" seems informal; I would replace it with "cost"
    checkY Changed to "estimated cost". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the cost of $506 million, that makes it seem like it's a per-unit cost, but I'm assuming its development of the IUS. If so, that should be changed to make it clear what that price is referring to.
    checkY Changed to emphasise that this is the development cost, not the per-unit cost, and the $506 does not include the $179. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pricing scheme is a tough to follow. From reading this, my understanding is that the Air Force paid the major development fees (the $506 million) and NASA was on the hook for $179 million to make the three-stage IUS. Since this was considered as a joint Air Force-NASA program, it really isn't clear how one organization was prepared to pay for most of the development and NASA was unable to pay its minority share.
    The Department of Defense had a much larger budget than NASA, and could more easily absorb cost overruns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Were the four advantages listed the official reasons given by NASA for selecting Centaur? This reads more like a commentary on the two programs instead of the reasoning to use it. They are good points to bring up, but the section is about the decision to use the Shuttle-Centaur, so it shouldn't have commentary made by non-decision makers.
    checkY Made it clear that these were the reasons advanced by the Lewis Research Center. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the advantages are left in
  • The power advantages/time saving should be quantified; it's not really clear how "good" a two-year flight time is.
    checkY Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentences about the advantages of the time reduction are wordy and could be combined. I would remove the commentary-sounding "This was not merely a matter of impatience" and just state that longer flight times had more wear and tear and used more energy/propellant, and that gravity assists require closer passes to the sun.
    checkY Removed, but the JPL account emphasises the frustration of scientists who had to wait years for their experiments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would combine the sentences about the second advantage, and instead of saying that it was gentle, state that its lower thrust generation resulted in reduced jerk on the probe.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would explain the flexibility provided by using a restartable engine. I'm assuming the advantages are mid-course corrections and multi-burn flight profiles.
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's confusing to say that Centaur was proven and reliable, but then state that solid rockets were safer. Was the concern for safety of the Shuttle crew or the mission as a whole? If it's the latter, it seems like safety and reliability are somewhat interchangeable, as not getting the probe to its destination is a fail regardless of what caused the failure.
    The astronauts' sole concern was for the safety of the crew. They weren't concerned about the unlikely event of Centaur not working correctly (like the IUS on STS-6). What they were concerned about was not the failure of Centaur but of other Space Shuttle components such as the main engines exploding when they went to full power (never attempted), or shutting down (which actually happened more than once). In that case, they would have to dump the fuel in the Centaur and attempt to land. Solid rockets like the IUS were considered safer than liquid ones, but ironically it was a failure of the Space Shuttle's supposedly safe solid rocket boosters that killed the entire crew of the Challenger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It just occurred to me that you can't dump the fuel from a solid, so in the event of an abort with the IUS on board the Shuttle would have to land heavy. On STS-51-D Discovery blew a tire on landing because the landing gear was not intended to carry the ultimate weight of the Shuttle. Doing that at KSC would have put the Shuttle in the swamp. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional approval
[edit]
  • The first and last paragraphs don't appear to have anything to do with Congressional approval, so they appear out of place in this section.
    checkY Moved to the previous section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the first paragraph is kept and relocated, I would reduce it and state that heavy-lift advantages. I would remove the part about pleasing planetary scientists and welcomed by the industry; it's enough to say that its lifting capabilities can lift heavier satellites/probes.
    Industry and scientists were important NASA constituencies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That those groups make up important NASA constituencies is important, but it's not clear how they factor in to Congressional approval. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IUS flight isn't really relevant to Centaur, other than that the IUS was mentioned as a competitor program. Its mission success doesn't have any impact on the Centaur, and it's not really fair to compare the success rate of a flown spacecraft with something unflown.
    Its lack of success meant that there was no alternative to Shuttle-Centaur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But the IUS was successfully flown on later missions; this makes it seem like the program was a failure instead of having a bad first mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the organizations that are unhappy with the Centaur choice, because it seems like their disappointment is just because they didn't receive the contract, not a decision based on the merits of the competing programs.
    That's not the point though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I think the issues that Boeing and the MSFC would have with Shuttle-Centaur would be related to NASA deciding to go with another option. I'm sure there was a belief that the IUS option was inherently better, but I think that's tough to separate that from the pursuit of funding that any aerospace contractor would want. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "vociferously" when describing Schmitt's opposition; while I have no doubt he believed in Centaur, there's not other mention of his opinion or work on the matter, and adding a superlative like vociferously makes it sound like he led the charge.
    checkY Deleted. Yes, he led the charge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "(a common practice in the USAF)". While I can't speak to what your sources state, there are regulations against Air Force organizations getting a contract without a tender process. I'm sure it still happens, but it's a stretch to say that the common practice in the Air Force is to violate this process.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to "vociferously," I would remove "staunchly" when describing Sen Lowery's actions; there's no further explanation of his actions.
    checkY Deleted. His connection to General Dynamics is mentioned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Design
[edit]
  • Why isn't the Magellan description under the probes sub-section? It seems like it would be more fitting there,
    The article is in chronological order, and the decision to use Shuttle-Centaur with Magellan and MilSat came after Shuttle-Centaur had been authorized. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But it seems out of place, since the section is titled "Design" and then the start of the paragraph is another mission that was approved for it. I think trying to keep things chronological is good, but this belongs under the discussion of the probes. Since Shuttle-Centaur never flew, its not like these launches have to be kept in some sort of order. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dealing with them was not always easy. Telephone conversations with General Dynamics regarding the project had to be conducted over secure phone lines." This makes it sound like Air Force contracting personnel were unpleasant partners, when instead it seems more like they had to follow procedures for handling classified material. This makes it seem like the Air Force is to blame, when a defense aerospace contractor would presumably have the infrastructure, capabilities, and experience to work on classified projects.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think its necessary to specify that development was conducted over secure telephone lines, as that would be the expectation with any defense contract of this nature. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is the point: that it was a defence contract. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a 10-centimeter (4 in) stroke known as the Super*Zip separation ring" I would reword this, as "stroke" isn't a term that the average reader will be familiar with; it's not listed on the spring (device) or coil spring pages either.
    Stroke length refers to the amount of compression a spring can be put under safely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I learned that (admittedly after some Googling). My point is that I don't think that's a common term that a casual reader looking for space history pages will understand. My take is that the amount of compression in the coil springs isn't an important detail to someone trying to understand Centaur deployment, and can be removed entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rephrase "or the planet below" as that makes it sound more like a dangerous collision for both objects than a Centaur reentering the atmosphere.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Space Shuttle" is linked twice before Challenger and Atlantis, and has already been linked in the article. Also, it's linked twice before both orbiters in the lead.
    checkY Tweaked template calls. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Management
[edit]
  • "which they claimed had experience with cryogenic propellants and more experience with the Space Shuttle, which they regarded as a complex system that only their three centers understood." This is wordy starting two phrases with "which they"
    checkY Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its experience with Centaur was the greatest of all the NASA centers; it had managed the successful Titan-Centaur project" This is a little repetitive; I would rephrase/combine the statements.
    This is something that I think should be addressed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it boasted a highly skilled workforce where the average engineer had thirteen years of experience" I'm assuming all space centers had highly skilled work forces? It's not really clear that thirteen years, on average, of experience makes Lewis the superior center.
Preparations
[edit]
  • I would remove the nicknames from the links for Hauck and Van Hoften
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since STS-61-G never flew, I think Fabian's replace by Thagard doesn't require an entire sentence, but instead something like "John Fabian, who was later replaced by Norman Thagard, and James Van Hoften."
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they would fly into a very low orbit, just 170 kilometers (110 mi)" I would refrain some saying things like "very low" and "just 170 kilometers" since that seems to provide uneeded commentary on the mission parameters, and maybe say "into a low 170 kilometer orbit"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the list of astronauts in the caption of the SC-1 rollout, as it's really long, and instead mention them by name in the paragraph. Their names are in the file's page as well, so it's not like the info isn't available to someone taking a close look at the photo.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was the best that the Space Shuttle could do with a fully fueled Centaur on board" This makes it sound like the low orbit was the best the Shuttle could do in the event of an in-flight issue or failure; maybe something more like "which was the hightest orbit the Space Shuttle could achieve with a fully fueled Centaur"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorder up the deployment-Space Adaptation Syndrome section; it's a little confusing why the 7 hours post-launch deployment is significant until later in the pargraph. Something like "Satellite deployments were not normally not scheduled for the first day to allow for astronauts who came down with space adaptation syndrome. Both Shuttle-Centaur crews were composed of astronauts that had already flown in space, which allowed the probes to be deployed seven hours into flight.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move Hauck being a project officer up to when the crews are described; it's disjointed that the crews are introduced, the mission summary is given, and then its goes back to the crews.
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "key Shuttle-Centaur meetings, which was unusual for astronauts" This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it's not like there were other Shuttle-Centaur flights, so other astronauts wouldn't be attending key Shuttle-Centaur meetings. Also, if he's a project officer for it, wouldn't Hauck be expected to attend meetings about it?
    Apparently not. The sources are very clear about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link the aborted mission profile to [[Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Ascent_abort_modes]] and shorten the sentence; something like "main safety issue concerned an aborted mission during the ascent." Also, its wasn't just a failure of the main engines that could result in not reaching orbit, so I wouldn't single it out.
    checkY Linked. The only aborts were caused by main engine failures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it needs to be specified that a Space Shuttle abort was dangerous as is without the Centaur.
    I think it does, as otherwise the reader might think that Shuttle-Centaur was the reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a concern for the astronauts, who feared fuel leaks and explosions" This makes it sound like either the astronauts were the only ones worried about this and nobody took them seriously, or that they were worrying too much. Either way, I think the potential loss of a mission and crew was a concern for a lot of non-astronauts as well.
    That's exactly the situation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the Young quote; it's just a nickname he had for it, and there's only one more mention of his concerns, and nothing specific. Plus, they needed to make the Centaur more difficult to destroy than bullseying womp rats with your T-16.
    I spent some time thinking about the quote, and ultimately decided to add it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why include it though? It's just a nickname Young had for it, as there's no explanation on why he thought it called it that, and it's not a particularly fitting nickname (as it would be for a military space station or the like). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is: the playing of the Star Wars theme music. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that has anything to do with Young's quote; a song that was played during an event that Young didn't attend doesn't seem to be a likely reason that he would give the spacecraft a nickname of a space station from the movie that music is from. If it was, that connection is not clear to the reader. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote appears in every reference. An explanation that Young (incorrectly) considered the mission to be be excessively risky is provided. The question is: if the quote is removed, will I be accused of whitewashing Shuttle-Centaur, resulting in one of those NPOV tags? What is your reason for pressing for its removal? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument against it is that it's not really clear what is meant by "Death Star," as it can imply powerful and good, evil, or just some thing that explodes. Young's concerns are already voiced throughout the article, and his concerns are well-explained. I find adding a nickname he had to just be an extraneous detail, especially when the analogy between the nickname and the Shuttle-Centaur isn't really clear. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Alright. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to a fanfare not seen since the days of Project Apollo" I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the national events around Apollo and the moon landings to a rollout of a Shuttle payload to a crowd of 300 that were mostly the employees that had worked on the project. Also, was only Star Wars music played?
    The point is that nothing like it had occurred in the decade since the Apollo landings. The sources support this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dawson & Bowles source says "excitement had rarely been seen since the glory days of the Apollo program" which doesn't describe the fanfare of the actual event. An impressive fanfare implies large crowds and notabile attendees; there were certainly events bigger than 300 attendees in between Apollo-Soyuz and August 1985. Even in the realm of spaceflight, every Space Shuttle launch certainly had a larger crowd and more coverage; Ronald Reagan attending the STS-4 landing could be considered a bigger event as well. It seems arbitrary and unfounded in actual metrics to describe the Centaur rollout as the biggest of these events. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY My mistake. The other source says "reminiscent of the halcyon days of the space program in the 1960s". Removed the clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who were the dignitaries giving speeches? Were they anyone particularly notable, or senior General Dynamics leadership? If its just the latter, I would leave it out.
    Senior NASA and General Dynamics officials. Stofan is pictured. Video is available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to identify the man sitting behind Stofan. I have most of the others Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Concerned that this was too few, Nieberding lobbied Moore to allow the engines to be run at 109 percent. Moore approved the request on the spot" I would combine these sentences, as also rephrase "on the spot," which is a figure of speech. Additionally, I would reintroduce Nieberding, since the reader may not remember him from the many names given in the previous paragraph.
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many days were now possible launch days with the increased engine output? That should be included
    Unfortunately, the source only says "a reasonable number". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "supposedly safe", as that comes across as providing commentary on the mission. There is a lot of backstory about the safety approval of the SRBs, but I don't think it needs to be included on this page.
    checkY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cancellation
[edit]
  • "Too many key personnel were involved in the analysis of the accident for the missions to proceed. The earliest they could be flown was in thirteen months." I would just say that the shuttle flights were suspended, since this makes it sound like it was the Shuttle-Centaur flights that were specifically postponed.
    Correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is this makes it sound like it was only the Shuttle-Centaur missions that were delayed as a result of the Challenger disaster, instead of the grounding of the entire fleet. It doesn't make sense to say that the earliest they could be flown was thirteen months, as the entire fleet was grounded for two years. I'm assuming the thirteen months was an estimate made at some point based upon when they thought the Space Shuttle would be up and running again, but it doesn't make sense here, as the Shuttle wasn't flying thirteen months after the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's correct; the Shuttle-Centaur missions were delayed as a result of the Challenger disaster. For how long was not known for some time. The grounding lasted much longer than anyone expected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although completely unrelated to the accident, Challenger had broken up immediately after throttling to 104 percent power. This contributed to an increased perception at the Johnson and Marshall Space Flight Centers that it was too risky to go to 109 percent." Who in power had this perception? While everyone is guilty of bias, it makes it seem like NASA decision makers disregarded facts and went with their feelings on increasing RS-25 power, which I assume is not the case.
    The sources don't single out anyone, but the fact remains that they were never run at 109 per cent on any mission. In testing in 2018 and 2019, the engines were run at 113 per cent without problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's true that the SSMEs were never flown at 109% despite successful tests at that level, it's speculation to say that this decision was made because of the Challenger disaster when there isn't an official account of this being the reason. According to the source, the pre-Challenger opinion of the JSC and MSFC was opposing 109% thrust, so it's not like their stances only changed after the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Tweaked the wording to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foreseeing the possibility of using the flight hardware with Titan, the USAF decided to..." I would rephrase this since it personifies the Air Force; the organization can't foresee or decide something. Since the next section shows that Air Force did purchase the flight equipment and used it on Titan, something like "The USAF purchased the Centaur flight hardware from NASA to use on Titan IV missions"
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
[edit]
  • Add/link the spaceflights for the Galileo and Ulysses deployments
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "just two" with "two" as that comes across as commentary; the reader should understand the difference in time
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The high-gain antenna damage description comes across as speculation on possible causes; was there an official NASA report on what caused it that can be referenced?
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • I would rephrase "Ulysses had to wait even longer" since the satellite isn't "waiting," maybe shorten the sentence to "Ulysses was launched a year later on the IUS, on 6 October 1990"
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the photo of the dedication ceremony down to the legacy section
    checkY Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten the caption of the dedication photo to the first sentence. The names/positions of the individuals described in the caption are already in the section, and Kavandi, Ross, and Oberg are pointed out in the image's description.
    The image description is not on Wikipedia, and is subject to arbitrary removal at any time. We never, ever assume that it will be available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prolonged period of time in the vacuum of space followed where bare metal touching could undergo cold welding." I'm assuming this has to do with the damage to the high-gain antenna, but this comes across as just a fact about cold welding without explaining how it's a problem or linking it to Galileo. Also, I'm no material scientist, but I would think that the time spent in the vacuum of space to reach Jupiter regardless of the launch platform could cause cold welding. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There should not have been any bare metal touching. Elaborated on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Any actionable issues remaining? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Any actionable issues remaining? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • Planning to comment throughout this week. Do ping if I forget. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eddie891: pinging... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family" maybe add a time frame to the Atlas rockets for context?
    The problem here is that the Atlas family story begins back in the early 1950s, and it is still in use. The latest launch was November last. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thew of the RL-10 engine exploded on the test stand" Thew? What does a 'test stand' test?
    Engines. Linked to engine test stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marshall Space Flight Center to its Lewis Research Center in Ohio." why does only one get a state?
    checkY Added "in Huntsville, Alabama" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 probes to Jupiter and Saturn; " did the two probes both go to each planet, one to each, or something else?
    checkYPioneer 10 went to Jupiter; Pioneer 11 to Jupiter and Saturn. It gets awkward to rephrase here. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "By 1980, Centaur had recorded 53 successful missions against two failures." are the two failures relevant? Would it be worth adding what caused them?
    checkY Wikipedia keeps score in Centaur (rocket stage)#Mishaps. I think we'd be off on a tangent here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The decision to use the Space Shuttle for all launches augured badly for the projects" I'd like a time frame for this sentence to anchor the reader as it's the start of a new section
    checkY Added the year (1972). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle" I'm not clear what the IUS would do?
    checkY Added "to be used for launching satellites in higher orbits pending the development of the Space Tug" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They reached an informal agreement" what was the agreement?
    checkY Added "reached an informal agreement that the USAF would develop an interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle
  • Is sullivan's opposition or McLucas's endorsement relevant at all? I think you can go from "They reached an informal agreement and after some debate..." without losing anything.
    checkY Don't think so. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is a "study contract"?
    A contract to carry out a study. As opposed to one to build something. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " expendable solid-fuel upper stage" does not mean anything to me -- could it be clarified, or is it already and I'm just being stupid
    There's three space age concepts here:
    1. expendable - as opposed to reusable. The contrast here is with the space tTug, whose NERVA nuclear engine could be refuelled and restarted.
    2. Solid fuel - as opposed to using liquid fuel, like Centaur and NERVA, which used liquid hydrogen.
    3. Upper stage. Means one of the stages of a multi-stage rocket other than the big one on the bottom. Each stage has its own engine and propellant. Centaur was an upper stage originally developed for use with Atlas.
    checkY expendable launch system and upper stage are already linked. Linked solid-fuel.
  • "What saved Galileo from cancellation " Why would it have been cancelled?
    checkY Added a bit about NASA budget cuts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pressurized atmospheric entry probe to a vented one" honestly, no idea what either of these mean
    In a pressurized aircraft, the cabin is maintained at a pressure greater than that outside. For a spacecraft, there's no air outside, so venting will mean that it operates in a vacuum. This is easier to do, but creates other problems, because metals can spontaneously weld when they come into contact in an airless environment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 3,200 kilograms (7,000 lb)" is that a lot or a little?
    It depends on what you consider a lot of money. It costs $10,000 to launch a pound of payload into Earth orbit, so this is worth $70 million per launch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when a Mars slingshot would no longer be sufficient to reach Jupite" why?
    The planets move around the Sun at high speed. They have to be correctly aligned for the slingshot trick to work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but this would have added at least $125 million (equivalent to $362 million in 2019) to the price of the $285 million (equivalent to $826 million in 2019) Galileo project because it would have required rebuilding the launch complex at Cape Canaveral" suggest rearranging to "but this would have required rebuilding..., adding at least..." to place the reason earlier
  • "In retrospect," maybe this sentence could just be "Nasa historian Heppenheimer later wrote that"?
    Moved the words around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have to work closely with the USAF, something that NASA management hoped to minimise" I think "hoped to avoid" or something else-- for some reason the sentence as is doesn't flow well for me, but not sure why
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was never intended to make a close approach to the Sun. " not sure what this sentence adds"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Centaur was chosen as the best option." when? At the 1983 meeting?
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were hardened against" what does hardened mean in this context?
    Protected against "against interception, jamming and nuclear attack". In particular, the electromagnetic pulse of the latter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • some more to come. It's probably painfully clear this is not my area of expertise... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to tell what level to pitch at article like this at. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Appearing before the Senate a few days later" A few days after what?
    checkY After the order from Congress; that is what the secondary source says, and I don't have access to the primary. Deleted "a few days later". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, NASA decided" not immediately clear to me what this is instead of?
    checkY Instead of using Centaur as directed by Congress. Deleted "Instead". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The problem was that" I think this could be dropped with no loss-- was probably not the only problem...
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not familiar with what 'geosynchronous' means
    checkY A geosynchronous or Clarke orbit is one where the satellite is at an altitude where the rotational speed of the satellite matches that of the Earth, so for an Earth observer, the satellite does not appear to be moving at all. If you do the math, that works out to be 35,786 kilometres up. Linked to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Senator Harrison Schmitt," feels like it could be broken into two, it's got a lot of commas and is very windy.
    checkY Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in design seems absent a citation?
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Congressmen" perhaps "representatives", being both more specific and avoiding the awkward gendered language followed by a woman's name?
    checkY Sure. In Australia we always call them "representatives" and never "congressmen", but I wasn't sure about US usage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William H. Robbins was appointed the head" date?
    checkY In July 1983. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with space adaptation syndrome." I know there's a link, but I think a brief gloss would be apt-- ideally explaining why seasoned astronauts would avert the problem
    checkY "and were known to not suffer from it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " one that in fact " can probably drop "in fact"
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gives a good analysis from the technical/matter-of-fact side of the story, but was there any public opinion? Reaction to the cancellation? Other commentary? There may not be, and that's OK Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur&oldid=1020209806"